Originally posted by Zahlanzi
your post fails at the notion that there must be a "male" and a "female" when it comes to sex.
far from it.
if we take the reproductive portion of sex, many times it involves a male and a female. but sometimes there is one hermaphrodite involved. and sometimes multiple males copulate with a female. and sometimes a single male might fertilize severa ...[text shortened]... to believe that a man that doesn't find women attractive would picture his partner a woman.
your post fails at the notion that there must be a "male" and a "female" when it comes to sex.
I don't think we should start by considering the way tapeworms reproduce to be the model that humans should follow.
Man is connected to the other creatures for sure. But in spite of this connection man is also occupying a unique place among all other creatures on earth. I am aware that in the hierarchy of created lives the Creator employed a number of other means of sexual reproduction as well as other functions.
I am a Christian. And I believe the norm set for the created man is an ordained way of reproduction within the marriage of one man and one woman.
Of course we can "experiment". But I don't think we can improve upon the ordained way of the God of nature.
far from it.
For amoebas and other creatures - sure, other methods were ordained for them.
if we take the reproductive portion of sex, many times it involves a male and a female. but sometimes there is one hermaphrodite involved. and sometimes multiple males copulate with a female. and sometimes a single male might fertilize several females.
And sometimes the fish will lay eggs on a rock. And the male fish will then spray his sperm upon the eggs attached to a rock.
This does not mean we humans should seek to imitate them. We should consider what has been ordained for humans.
if we take the pleasure portion of sex, again, there can be one, 2 or more partners involved and not all must be of different genders.
Concerning "the pleasure portion of sex" it could involve, with some criminals, watching the eyes of a woman buldge out in agonizing strangulation. Some serial killer may derive "the pleasure portion of sex" by inflicting pain or murder on the victim of his desire.
Today this is viewed as a mental illness. It may change. But not too long ago homosexuality was also classified as a psychological illness.
Perhaps its removal was not so much because of greater tolerance but because of fear of the rising and unstoppable tide of the deviancy.
Perhaps in another 50 years your children will accept as normal what today is viewed as a mental illness. Maybe by the time you reach your 70s or 80s marriage and sex with animals will be considered the norm with that generation of people.
I think there is a place for being "progressive". But I wonder sometimes whether we think the rotten decay of morality is "progressive" too.
This seems to me sometimes like unplugging the refrigerator. And then after three weeks when the stench of rotten food floods out when I open the frig door, I explain that all the food inside has become "progressive".
Actually, it is rotting.
why do you believe that a gay dude having sex with his partner pictures himself a woman or his partner a woman? it is moronic to believe that a man that doesn't find women attractive would picture his partner a woman.
I did not claim to know what is in the mind of everyone performing homosexual sex acts. I questioned you as to how you are so sure all such relationships are "love".
I think a kind of idolatry of unbridled greedy lust may be mistaken for love there as well as in some disfunctional heterosexual encounters also.
The Bible speaks of the decline of human culture from creation as including -
"God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleaness, so that they dishonor their bodies among themselves, ... for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature; And likewise also the males with males committing unseemliness and fully receiving in themselves the retribution of their error which was due." (Romans 1:24-27)
This is part of the ground work the New Testament lays for the need of ALL - hetero or homo, to be saved through Christ's salvation.
It neither stops there nor commands that we go off and be "good" people. It says all men are caught in one evil net or another or another. And homosexuality is one net some sinners are caught in.
It is not "gay". It is a slavery. And it is perculiar the gay activists themselves refer to gay verses
"straight". Is the implication really
"crooked" verses
"straight" ?
Anyway, we are humans and not flatworms.
The Bible accepts homosexuality!
29 Oct '11 22:501 edit
Back to Top